Evidence of meeting #68 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was edibles.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Ryan Vandrey  Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins University, As an Individual
Daniel Vigil  Manager, Marijuana Health Monitoring and Research, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Dana Larsen  Director, Sensible BC
Hilary Black  Founder, BC Compassion Club Society
Marcel Vandebeek  Administrator, BC Compassion Club Society
Jonathan Zaid  Executive Director, Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana
Daphnée Elisma  Quebec Representative, Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana
Jacqueline Bogden  Assistant Deputy Minister, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health
David Pellmann  Executive Director, Office of Medical Cannabis, Department of Health
Lisa Holmes  President, Alberta Urban Municipalities Association
Marc Emery  Cannabis Culture
Jodie Emery  Cannabis Culture
Bill Karsten  Second Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Brock Carlton  Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Thank you.

Mr. Emery, the task force also said this about e-commerce mail order:

Consideration should also be given to ensuring that online retail sales have appropriate consumer safeguards. To accommodate those who may not have access to storefronts (e.g., small communities, rural and remote locations, mobility-challenged individuals) a direct-to-consumer mail-order system for non-medical cannabis should be considered.

You're probably aware that Bill C-45 does not contain a permanent national e-commerce platform. Is that a positive or negative thing in your opinion?

3:30 p.m.

Cannabis Culture

Marc Emery

A lot of these things depend on your interpretation as representing the free market/black market. I would say that's more business for us if the government wants to neglect that area.

What we're really looking for in legalization is a reduction in the price over time because something that's legal should be cheap. Right now the price of marijuana is artificially high, and all the derivatives are way too high. People are spending far too much money on marijuana, and that's created a lot of the problems. It's attracted gangs and it's attracted criminals. It's attracting government. All I've heard from these fellows from the municipalities is, “How can we gouge the public for more money? We need more money.” Somehow, legalization is going to cost every single bureaucracy more than it did before. The cities are going to spend millions, and the cops are going to spend millions more. You'd think we were doubling up on the criminalization, which we may well be doing, and that's why we have to spend all this money.

It doesn't sound like legalization from anything I've heard from a municipality, from a provincial government, or from anybody here. It sounds like you're all into control and gouging as much money out of a vulnerable population of pot smokers as you can possibly get.

That, to me, is the real reason for this legislation. It's not to legalize pot. If it was to legalize pot, Mr. Trudeau would say, “Mr. Speaker, we have a majority, and we've just removed cannabis from the schedule. My health minister will direct that and, from now on, the provinces are free to regulate it.” That would be the whole legalization campaign. Instead, you have 300 pages of a cannabis act that recriminalizes everybody and makes a huge bureaucracy of government at all levels, which we don't need. It spends a lot more money and gives police more power. That sounds like prohibition.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Thanks.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

The time is up.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move my motion now, if I may.

As I gave notice yesterday, I would like to move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this Committee meet for an additional two days for the purpose of the consideration of Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts; and that the Chair be empowered to coordinate the witnesses, to a minimum of 32 witnesses (8 per stakeholder group), the resources, and scheduling necessary to complete this task in accordance with the following guidelines: —

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

Just a minute. Let's excuse the witnesses. They've been here a long time. Then we'll continue on with your issue. Is that all right with you?

3:30 p.m.

Cannabis Culture

Jodie Emery

I have all the time in the world. I'm unemployed.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

You said, Mr. Chair, that I was the last speaker, so whether they're sitting there or not doesn't seem to really matter.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

I think we should thank the witnesses for their contributions. They've all made a unique contribution, every one of them. We value them all. It was very important testimony today, so on behalf of all the members of the committee, I want to thank you all for your contributions and your information.

With that, go ahead, Mr. Davies.

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

I'll continue reading:

1. Witnesses are to represent the following stakeholder groups in four two-hour panel blocks per day: i. Existing Canadian licensed producers and dispensaries; ii. Producers of edible cannabis products and other non-smokable forms of cannabis; iii. Ordinary Canadians who made a written submission to the Committee regarding Bill C-45; iv. Young Canadians, 15 to 24 years old. 2. That witnesses for each panel block be allotted as follows: 2 Liberal, 1 Conservative, 1 NDP. 3. That witnesses be directed to prepare oral remarks for 10 minutes in length, and that the witnesses be invited to submit written statements prior to appearing; 4. That the meeting be held prior to September 30, 2017.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to speak to my motion and give the rationale behind it.

Bill C-45 is groundbreaking legislation in many respects. It changes a century of legal, social, economic, and cultural policy in this country. It's 131 pages long and contains 226 clauses, plus schedules. It deals with a number of complex issues about cannabis decriminalization. It involves cultivation, possession, age of access, health impacts, enforcement, production, packaging, labelling, international implications, edibles and concentrates, education, research, and other issues.

In June the Liberals proposed five days of hearings to be conducted the week before Parliament resumed. They solicited the opinion of Canadians over the summer when Canadians are probably least engaged in public policy. They have scheduled these hearings before Canadians could even be fully engaged. In many respects the hearings are over before most Canadians are really engaged in them.

Scheduling the entire week of hearings before the House of Commons resumes avoids scrutiny in the House of Commons and restricts the ability of MPs to raise evidence in the House of Commons questioning the ministers and government as responsible government should allow us to do. It restricts the committee's ability to properly follow up on issues that arise from the testimony. We've heard a lot of testimony this week that raises many issues which I think MPs on all sides of the table would like to be able to follow up on.

At that time in June, both the New Democrats and Conservative opposition objected to those five days. We said we would need more days. I want to pause to emphasize that this committee is the only phase of the legislative process where Parliament hears from the public, from stakeholders, from experts. It's the only opportunity for public input, and I believe it's very important to hear those views as we do our jobs and study this bill.

In June when the opposition objected to the limitation of five days of hearings, the Liberals agreed, saying they were open to holding more hearing days if needed. Now, today, after five days of hearings, it's obvious that there are glaring holes in this bill, that many issues have been raised, and that, most important, there has been an absence of critical voices.

First of all, we have not yet heard a word from from young people. We haven't had one witness, age 15 to 24. Yet we have heard from all sorts of people about how important it is we get this cannabis legislation right for young Canadians, to know precisely the health impacts on developing brains, and to talk to young people in a manner they will accept and understand. We're charged with protecting the health of young Canadians, and yet we don't bother to hear any of them tell this committee how they feel about this issue.

Second, we haven't heard a word from ordinary Canadians. There were many ordinary Canadians who wrote this committee with submissions and requested to appear, but we didn't schedule a single one of them.

Third, we haven't heard from licensed producers themselves, the very people who have been growing cannabis legally in this country for the past 10 years.

Fourth, we've heard a lot of evidence—and I think some exaggeration and maybe even some mythology—about the impacts of edibles, but we haven't heard from a single edible and concentrate manufacturer or industry.

Quite honestly, I think these are glaring errors, yet for some reason I believe the Liberals do not want to hear from a single one of those groups.

Mr. Chair, the New Democrats support legalization. We broadly support this bill. Frankly, we believe this bill can be brought into force by next July, and we're willing to work with the government to do so. We want to work with the government to fix the holes in this bill that we've already identified: the absence of edibles and concentrates, the fact that there's a lack of a national e-commerce platform, the fact this legislation does not deal with pardons, the fact that we have border issues and international considerations, the fact that it still criminalizes many Canadians, including maintain a maximum penalty of up to 14 years in prison for Canadians. There are all sorts of aspects to this bill that I think require further scrutiny.

It is not the New Democrats' intention to be deleterious or to delay in any way the government's stated objective of hitting July 1. That's why, in the context of my motion in the text, I said that we could hold those two days by September 30. We know that the ministers are scheduled to appear next week, on Tuesday. We know that after that process we're going to need at least a week or two to prepare the many amendments before we start the clause-by-clause examination of this bill, in which we'll go through the entire bill line by line and discuss and debate and move amendments. We'll be into October, no matter what. I think it's eminently reasonable to schedule two more days of hearings to hear from those groups that are so important to hear from prior to September 30, so that we can make sure we have the broadest, most comprehensive evidence and information that we can get before this committee while still allowing the government to meet its stated objective.

I'll conclude by saying it's my understanding the Liberals are going to vote against this motion. They're going to have to tell Canadians, explain to them, why the voice of youth is not important to inform this bill, why the voice of ordinary Canadians is not important. I want to stop and say on that point that this bill isn't for producers. It's not for dispensary owners. It's not for edible cannabis manufacturers. This bill is for the millions of Canadians who voted in the last election for the promise of the legalization of cannabis, and to proceed with this bill without hearing from them is unacceptable.

The government side may argue that they heard from the task force. That was to inform the process. Who I want to hear from on this legislation are those people. Now that legislation has been drafted and tabled before Parliament, they have a right to now offer their comments on the actual proposals that have come before us, particularly when the government has ignored several recommendations of the task force in this legislation.

I really hope the Liberal government will see fit to include these important voices. If not, I hope they have a good explanation as to why these important voices are not important to be heard at this committee.

I will conclude here. The difference is this: it's not enough to say that people can contact MPs on their own, or we can hold town halls, which many of us have done or are doing. To testify at this committee is to testify in front of the entire health committee, in public, recorded, televised, and in both languages. That provides a unique opportunity to hear that voice that is not fully accommodated in any other fashion.

For all those reasons, I would urge my colleagues to support this very reasonable motion, so that we can bring Canadians the best, safest, and healthiest cannabis legislation that we can possibly craft as Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

Ms. Sidhu.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Sonia Sidhu Liberal Brampton South, ON

Mr. Chair, I'll be speaking against this motion.

I want to remind this committee, and my colleague Mr. Davies, who is in favour of this motion, that we set up five days of uninterrupted study, which we are doing, and our government ran a campaign on this issue in 2015. In 2015, the cannabis task force worked for six months, consulted over 30,000 Canadians, and travelled across the country and to other jurisdictions. The committee heard over 100 witnesses this week, including over 40 hours of testimony from government, law enforcement, the medical community, researchers, and scientists. The committee also received hundreds of written submissions. Over the summer, all three parties worked to build their witness list in preparation for this study. In addition, provinces and territories are undertaking their consultations.

I just want to thank you, Chair, and thank you all, colleagues. I think it's an important piece of legislation and we should move forward.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

Dr. Carrie.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Don for bringing this forward. Well said, Don. Thank you for that.

He reiterated that in June, we did vote against this. The Liberals wanted to kind of pigeonhole us into five different days with different topics, and we did want to hear from different groups. Don has brought forward the names of some of those groups. At the end of the day, Canadians expect us to be looking after their health and safety. That's what this committee is all about.

If you listen repeatedly to the Liberal talking points, they're consistently that they want to keep this out of the hands of kids and they want to keep the proceeds away from organized crime. We've heard from witnesses throughout, even from Liberal members, that it's obvious there are huge gaps in this bill. If we don't get it right, we've heard it over and over again that this could actually make things worse for everybody in Canada.

I know we're going to hear the government come out and say it has heard so many witnesses—the number of witnesses and that—and it's going to compare it to other studies it did. I'm not interested in that. Sometimes these other studies were shut down as well. We were promised that the Liberals were open to more witnesses.

What this has done for me is it has really given me perspective on how complicated this issue is, and how different levels of government need to get their boots on the ground. They have to get these all prepared. As my Liberal colleagues have noticed, there are huge gaps in this bill. We need a bit more perspective, and we need to make sure we get it right. That's the least we can do for Canadians.

Don, we'll be supporting your motion.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

Ms. Gladu.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Chair, I also want to speak in support of the motion.

I was very disappointed this morning when I suggested adding more meetings for more witnesses that the Liberals shut that down. They keep saying they're not rushing, but it looks like they're rushing. We haven't heard from Uruguay, the only country in the world other than us that has ever legalized marijuana, and we should at least hear what it has to say.

There are a number of other things that have come out through the testimony that have pointed out gaps we would need to close, such as the border issue, the international treaty issue, a number of different things that are not addressed, the revenue sharing, things that we would need to hear more testimony on.

Thank you, Don, for bringing that forward. I will be supporting it.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

Mr. Davies.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Briefly, in response to Ms. Sidhu's comments, the original motion by the Liberals was to have five days of hearings only. After deliberation, this committee changed that motion to say that there would be an initial five days of testimony plus the possibility of additional days, if necessary. The Liberals agreed to that. Now, after five days of hearings, the Liberals are saying that there is no more possibility of further days of hearings. If anything, it's the Liberals who are backtracking on the commitment made in June.

Also, I'd like to say that hearing from Canadians on the task force is not the same as hearing Canadians comment on the drafted legislation, particularly when the legislation deviates from the task force recommendations. My one example is edibles. The task force said that, for various reasons after listening to 30,000 Canadians and studying the experience for the jurisdictions, they came to the considered and evidence-based position that this government should legalize edibles. That's what Canadians told them, and then the government tabled legislation that ignores that. I want to hear what Canadians have to say about that.

Finally, again, I don't need 50- and 60-year-olds telling me how to talk to 16- to 18-year-olds. I want to hear from the 16- to 18-year-olds what they think about cannabis. To shut out and not hear those voices puts us at risk of doing a great disservice to all the concerns people have stated about the health of young Canadians.

I'll just stop there. I'm happy to proceed to a vote, if my colleagues want that.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

All right, seeing no more speakers, I'll call for a vote.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

I'd like a recorded vote, please.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

Yes.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Here in the health committee we have certain members who are part of this committee. I think it was tabled in the House. I think that, officially, Mr. Kang is still a member of this committee. I'm not sure if the Liberal government can substitute another Liberal member. I know Mr. McKinnon is here, and I appreciate his very good input into the committee.

Technically speaking, can the government party actually substitute a member in for an independent, and then does that member actually have the right to vote? Could you let us know the rules on that?

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

My ruling is that he can be substituted. Mr. McKinnon is legitimate as a voting member of the committee.

Mr. Davies.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I'm requesting a recorded vote, please, on my motion.